"Is Ubuntu an operating system? Last week at EuroOSCON, Mark Shuttleworth gave the closing keynote outlining what he believes are the major struggles faced by the open-source/free-software community. During his talk, it became clear that Ubuntu is trying to achieve a radical shift in the software world. Ubuntu isn't trying to be a platform for mass-market application software: it is trying to be the primary provider of both the operating system and all the application software that a typical user would want to run on his machine. Most Linux distributions are like this, and I think it is a dangerous trend that will stifle innovation and usability."

No, they don't. Even if a new piece of software comes out, the only way you'll be able to get it is when the packagers get around to packaging up a version for specific version of their distribution. At the current pace, that's some time never. The time it's taken to update Bacula is a perfect example there which proves just how wrong you are. It's extra work which just isn't necessary.

What does a software developer distributing a proprietary piece of software like AutoCAD (one can dream) do? Package it up for a dozen different repositories and distributions, submit it and watch while it take six months or more to get it through testing and into the official repository? Dream on.

What doesn't scale is updates, given what you say.

Errrrr. No.

Try to at least understand what you're saying.

Well, it seems you're trying to find a way of saying that a repositories system is the best way of installing the millions of pieces of software out there. You're failing - badly - as everyone else has who's done it.

Not exactly the distro's fault. You could complain to the distro or to the software maker.

No, it is the distro's fault. There are no mechanisms and tools in place for creating a universal package that can be distributed and installed.

It is condascending in the extreme that you, or Mark Shuttleworth, should suggest that the software maker is going package up for every distribution and repository out there, or package only for Ubuntu. Hint: They aren't doing it, and they're never going to.

So obviously, it's entirely the Bacula authors fault, not the distro's fault at all.

No, it's the distro makers fault. Windows provides the mechanisms needed for installing and configuring a piece of software in rational manner. Ubuntu and Linux distributions don't do that, and there is no way people packaging up software are going to be able to put in the work needed to package up, what is really the same software, for umpteen different distributions and then watch it go through a repository system.

Not...going...to...happen, and isn't.

So why they don't do that ? And why do you blame the distro ?

Because providing tools that allow you to package up software, and install and configure it in a rational manner is up to the distributor and operating system.

So why don't you start complaining to Bacula authors ?

Because it's not their fault.

It's so straightforward it's unreal, but I suppose there seem to be a lot of people out there who want to defend software repositories as the second coming of software installation. Deluded souls.....

No, they don't. Even if a new piece of software comes out, the only way you'll be able to get it is when the packagers get around to packaging up a version for specific version of their distribution. At the current pace, that's some time never. The time it's taken to update Bacula is a perfect example there which proves just how wrong you are. It's extra work which just isn't necessary

Excuse me, but when did you prove it doesn't scale ? Like I said, the repository will accept your package just fine. Scale does not mean "magic", in the way that every app that appears somewhere is automatically updated in the repository. You're talking about updates to the repository, not the scaling of the repository.
If you complain to Bacula and the repository managers, you will get the package in faster.
The fact that Bacula wasn't updated in the repository doesn't show anything about if it scales or not. I could give you the big ones (KDE and Gnome) which are updated nearly instantly, because you see, KDE and Gnome devs make the effort to provide their product to distro. So it scales pretty well, shows that you're wrong, and that Bacula is the problem.

What does a software developer distributing a proprietary piece of software like AutoCAD (one can dream) do? Package it up for a dozen different repositories and distributions, submit it and watch while it take six months or more to get it through testing and into the official repository? Dream on

KDE and Gnome manage to post their huge software base to the most popular distro, and they're not even as cohesive as AutoCAD vendor.
What BS is it you're saying ? You're saying professionals like AutoCAD makers can't provide their products to customers, while Gnome and KDE devs can ?
Come on !
Popular FOSS programs are updated in less than a week, how come ISV can't do the same ?

Well, it seems you're trying to find a way of saying that a repositories system is the best way of installing the millions of pieces of software out there. You're failing - badly - as everyone else has who's done it

Perhaps it's not the best way, but it works, leaving your OS consistent and working.

No, it is the distro's fault. There are no mechanisms and tools in place for creating a universal package that can be distributed and installed

BS ! There are for EVERY distro out there. If you mean sth installable on any OS, there is no software like that on any OS, sorry.

It is condascending in the extreme that you, or Mark Shuttleworth, should suggest that the software maker is going package up for every distribution and repository out there, or package only for Ubuntu. Hint: They aren't doing it, and they're never going to

Some amateurs and professionals have done it before, though.
Nobody asked for that, but you have problem understanding that that's only YOU that say that. You can't seem to get off your own straw man.
You need only support one or two most of the popular distro package system.

No, it's the distro makers fault. Windows provides the mechanisms needed for installing and configuring a piece of software in rational manner

That's completely false. No Windows app can install itself without the vendor packaging the software, stop your BS please.
There are even several different package makers (4 or 5) for Windows. It's no different than a distro package. They're even worse.
If you look at a Windows installer, no one looks the same, and some are even completely custom (like for games or drivers).
Obviously, you never made a package for Windows or for Linux distro. You seem really clueless on the matter.

Ubuntu and Linux distributions don't do that, and there is no way people packaging up software are going to be able to put in the work needed to package up, what is really the same software, for umpteen different distributions and then watch it go through a repository system

You don't even know what you're talking about. A package manager is exactly what you're describing. Apparently, you don't understand the two words package and manager. Package manager go hand in hand with repositories, but you're not forced to put your app in a repository. A package is a standalone equivalent of your setup.exe in Windows. In fact, it's FAR BETTER, dealing with dependancies if you wish, having automatic installation/uninstallation that actually works, pre and post installation actions, ...
Again :
- there is no need to package for umpteen different distro
- you need to support 2 package systems at most
- you can use the load of installers available (Loki being the oldest one, autopackage, ...)

Because providing tools that allow you to package up software, and install and configure it in a rational manner is up to the distributor and operating system

Already done : rpm, deb, there are others too. It's tiring already.

It's so straightforward it's unreal, but I suppose there seem to be a lot of people out there who want to defend software repositories as the second coming of software installation. Deluded souls

Perhaps against people like you that don't even know what is available and spread lies.

Excuse me, but when did you prove it doesn't scale ? Like I said, the repository will accept your package just fine.

It doesn't scale because it's entirely dependant on the developer resources available to package up for each repository and each distribution, whereas if you just provide a generic package it's done for everyone.

I could give you the big ones (KDE and Gnome) which are updated nearly instantly, because you see, KDE and Gnome devs make the effort to provide their product to distro.

You really have no clue at all. Gnome and KDE developers do no packaging whatsoever for distros. Canonical, Suse and other distros have entire teams of people that package up Gnome and KDE for their respective distros and repositories.

What are Canonical and all these other distros going to do? Employ teams of people to package up specific fringe, but popular, software and maintain it? Are they going to package up all the potential properietary software as well? It's just not viable, or scalable.

BS ! There are for EVERY distro out there.

So if I create a package for Fedora it will install on Ubuntu and Suse? Errrr. No.

You need only support one or two most of the popular distro package system.

Well no. You don't just port to a package management system, but you're also porting to different distributions, or even different versions of the same distribution.

If that's the case then they're going to port to Suse and Red Hat and leave Ubuntu out in the cold, aren't they?

There are even several different package makers (4 or 5) for Windows. It's no different than a distro package.

Except that you can create a package quickly and easily for Windows, with a GUI front-end for configuration, and it will install. When there are four or five package managers, and distributions, then you have to port to those four or five.

If you look at a Windows installer, no one looks the same, and some are even completely custom

So what? It installs.

You don't even know what you're talking about. A package manager is exactly what you're describing. Apparently, you don't understand the two words package and manager. Package manager go hand in hand with repositories...

Except that has nothing to do with what you replied to, namely that application developers are not going to package their software up for umpteen different distros, package management systems and repositories.

there is no need to package for umpteen different distro

Oh, so you can take a package designed for Red Hat and install on Suse or Ubuntu and all these problems don't exist? Errrr, no you can't.

you need to support 2 package systems at most

Suse's RPMs are different to Red Hat's RPMs which are different to Debian's DEBs that are different to Ubuntu's DEBs.

Plus, you can't wrap your head around that you're not just supporting different package systems, but making packages for different distros and different versions of the same distro with different binary compatibility requirements and different dependencies.

Why on Earth do you think third parties create statically linked installation packages that are the size of Brazil?

It's a mess.

you can use the load of installers available (Loki being the oldest one, autopackage, ...)

There isn't centralised support for those within any distributions, which is kind of Mark Shuttleworth's point. He doesn't want anything to do with them.

Already done : rpm, deb, there are others too. It's tiring already.

Errrr, that's kind of the point. There are too many different package management systems, and even the RPM and DEB systems are different between Suse, Red Hat, Debian and Ubuntu. What is required is for distributors to run with something like Autopackage for anything beyond the core software of their system, so that developers can make one package and have it available for everyone.

Perhaps against people like you that don't even know what is available and spread lies.

Well, the latest version of Bacula certainly isn't available for Dapper, and that isn't a lie. The application developers just don't have the resources, and telling them to port to Ubuntu and every other distro out there isn't going to help.